The history of legislation pertaining to women’s reservation in India is complex. While the idea is today framed as a contemporary breakthrough, its inception can be traced back to the Constituent Assembly debates held between 1946 and 1950.In these debates, two out of the 15 women who were part of the Assembly argued unrelentingly against the implementation of reservation for women. Surprisingly, the only one in favour was a man: R K Chaudhari.Although the idea re-entered political discourse in 2008 when a constitutional amendment Bill seeking to reserve one-third of all seats for women in Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies was moved, the legislation was passed only 15 years later. In 2023, Parliament unanimously passed the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023, which later became the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act upon receiving presidential assent.Today, the Act stands on the threshold of implementation, still awaiting the delimitation exercise, even as Lok Sabha Friday defeated a constitutional amendment Bill to raise the share of women in India’s elected legislatures to 33% of their respective total seats.During the Constituent Assembly debates, Hansa Mehta and Renuka Ray emerged as prominent voices against the reservation of seats for women. Both were activists for India’s independence, having participated in the non-cooperation and swadeshi movements, besides serving in the All India Women’s Conference — a non-governmental organisation dedicated to promote women’s welfare.Mehta had gained increasing prominence due to her membership of the United Nations subcommittee on the Status of Women, while Ray had represented India in the UN General Assembly in 1949.Story continues below this adDuring the debate on December 19, 1946, Mehta expressed her gratitude to Mahatma Gandhi for extending the freedom struggle towards women. Mehta, herself a general category candidate in the 1937 Bombay Legislative Council, insisted that women had never asked for privileges.“What we have asked for is social justice, economic justice, and political justice. We have asked for that equality, which can alone be the basis of mutual respect and understanding and without which real co-operation is not possible between man and woman,” she said.Mehta’s reluctance towards the demand for reserved seats, separate electorates, or quotas arguably stemmed from a unitarian spirit that bound the women of the Constituent Assembly.Also in Explained | Women’s representation in Parliament and state assemblies, explained in 4 chartsIn 1947, Ray echoed Mehta’s argument strongly. She recalled her opposition to the 1935 Government of India Act, which ensured reservation for women in the legislature.Story continues below this ad“When there is reservation of seats for women, the question of their consideration for general seats, however competent they may be, does not usually arise,” she said. According to her, women should advance by merit — or as she termed “ability” alone — and added that reservation would “impediment to our growth and an insult to our very intelligence and capacity.”She cited the example of Vijayalakshmi Pandit, who, at the time, was not only a member of the Constituent Assembly, but also an Indian ambassador. Ray said that Pandit was appointed as ambassador not because of her sex but because of “proven worth”.The counter argumentR K Chaudhari offered a distinct perspective. “When a woman asks for something, as we know, it is easy to get it and give it to her,” he said, in the debate held on November 9, 1948. “But when she does not ask for anything in particular it becomes very difficult to find out what she wants.”He claimed to be speaking from his experience as a “parliamentarian and a man of the world”, his argument based on what he perceived as the everyday callousness in men that enabled a systemic discrimination against women. He criticised the composition of the Drafting Committee, which, according to him “consisted of people who have no domestic relations with women” and thus showed nervousness regarding the subject. Later, he lamented the death of male chivalry outside of the House, and in the streets of India: “Women generally have lost faith in the chivalry of men. The young men of to-day do not show respect to them even in the trams and buses.”Story continues below this adAlso read | Women’s reservation: In a small panchayat in Tamil Nadu, a lesson on what women in power can meanRay immediately rebutted Chaudhari’s argument — even as she ironically referred to him as a “champion and defender of women” — and reiterated her stance.Interestingly, Chaudhari’s argument seemed to arise from the legislature’s inability to transcend the gap between theoretical and practical equality. Chaudhari recognised this gap as a form of “systemic exclusion”, which reservations could help bridge.But Chaudhari’s concluding argument also appeared to frame a community — in this case, India’s women — as a separate group in need of constant management. “If you give them a special constituency, they can have their scramble and fight there among themselves without coming into the general constituency. Otherwise we may at times feel weak and yield in their favour and give them seats which they are not entitled to,” he said.Then vs nowIn 1949, the Assembly’s women members placed their faith in the idea of merit and formal equality that could be realised through initiatives such as universal adult franchise.Story continues below this adNumbers, however, show how a different reality unfolded over time. Today, women make up around 13.6% of the legislators in Lok Sabha: a definite improvement from the 4.9% in the first general election of 1951-52 and yet, far from a utopian parity.The author is an intern with The Indian Express.